Case 1305961/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss O Mawuli Surrzema v Maypole Health Care Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305961/2024
- Decision date
- 19 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss O Mawuli Surrzema
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss O Mawuli Surrzema, brought a complaint described as direct race and/or sex discrimination arising from the respondent's alleged use of an old email address during the handling of a grievance between 30 October 2023 and 12 February 2024, said to have delayed the process through Mr Salv Tuzze. At the hearing in Birmingham by video on 8 May 2025, Employment Judge Edmonds struck out the complaint under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The written record states that the tribunal gave its reasons orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary award was made and no remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The complaint was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.